at 9 weeks 90% of it's body functions are the same as a adult, but yet you still kill it, 18 weeks memory and reason are there but yet you can kill it, it's murder from the time it is conceived till the time that person dies
Fetal memory hasn't been shown before 30 weeks, & the ability to reason doesn't come till after birth.
& here
"it's murder from the time it is conceived"
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or the killing of a person with no legal or moral justification. It's legal to kill fetuses, & at conception they are not persons
"have you done your research"
Yes, only I didn't pull my research from prolife website.
@Fuctmentality let me guess you went to a pro choice or science website were they condone it. See any science website that supports stem cell research will advocate abortion in anyway because it is one of the easiest ways to get stem cells. And last time I checked a fetus is a human if it is inside a human, can't be a dog or something of another species.
@Fuctmentality you took the last part out of context smart one, but what can I expect from a moron.....see I know your type, you have nothing better to do than try to prove yer right on everything, and from my observation of your comments on another video, you have the moral values of a Nazi. I done arguing the point, not worth the stress it gives me.
@mwjayjr That would be a non sequiter, an ad hom & a false accusation.
You never started arguing a point you just lied, & when called out you tried to claim science is a conspiracy motivated by a blatant falsehood & provided a strawman. & When that was pointed out you claimed I took your straw man out of context (I didn't) & called me a NAZI moron.
See I know your type, you will never consider the possibility that you're wrong, even when you have to resort to doing all that to justify yourself.
@Fuctmentality yer further proving what I said as you keep trying to get me to attack your belief again. and I know exactly what you have... narcissistic personality disorder.
@mwjayjr You never attacked my beliefs, you don't even know what any of my beliefs are. You just lied & when I pointed that out you said science a conspiracy, & when it was pointed out that what you claim is the motivation for the conspiracy makes no sense & is based off false information, you call me a NAZI moron. & I just think such lousy justifications are pathetic as is attacking people who point out that you speaking bullshit.
@Fuctmentality O and you also want the last word.....here's my last little bit to you. If you are going to try and prove someone wrong don't associate words that weren't related, don't paraphrase cause it take credibility from your argument, and finally, you can't choose a persons theory on something so don't it makes you look bad when a person never said that
@mwjayj Lulwat? I didn't paraphrase. I just pointed out I've covered everything, from you lying to you claiming that the reason science contradicts you is conspiracy, to you calling me a NAZI moron for pointing it out. Non of those things were paraphrased. Well I've said all I have to, you have a nice pathetic life.
We all know that a fetus is 'human offspring', how silly to say otherwise. But that doesn't make it a living human being. If you look at what is being developed & whether it is functionable, would it survive if 'born' at this stage? In early pregnancy, the answer is NO. So how can it be compared to someone already born? If the embryo/fetus is expelled before 12 weeks, it's called a miscarriage not a death. Why can't the woman decide for her fetus to continue developing or terminate development?
You cannot kill a born human being, because it already is outside the woman’s domain. When you extract a fetus from the womb it is call abortion. When you kill a baby, child or adult is call murder.
This iDr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. writes: "The underlying premise in the arguments pro-abortionists give against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons. They are saying that a living being can undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime. But there is a logical problem here. If the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature.s because if the being naturally initiates the change,
tet: pro-abortionists give against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons.
THEY DO change into persons atre birth. A non personis an individual who lacks, loses, or is forcibly denied social or legal status, especially basic human rights, or who effectively ceases to have a record of their existence within a society from a point of view of traceability, documentation, or existence
THAT IS A FETUS. When born, it obtains all that stuff that makes it a person.LOL
@Sueezee1 - So if the law takes basic human rights away from women and forcibly denies them social status you agree they women will no longer be persons?
@Sueezee1 - That was the first definition you gave below for what a person is. So apparently you do not actually hold to that definition. And we can have record of the existence of a fetus. We even have fetal homicide laws that recognize the fetus as a human.
@Sukov ::That was the first definition you gave below for what a person is. What is???
suck: So apparently you do not actually hold to that definition What defintion???
suck: And we can have record of the existence of a fetus. hahahaha.. NO there is no legal record of fetuses.. Dont try to fast talk me..youre not smart enough.
@Sueezee1 - Just read up to the first post of yours I responded to. I was referring to a definition of person that you posted. So are you saying a fetus is not a person because it has no legal record? Yes or no.
@Sukov :: We even have fetal homicide laws that recognize the fetus as a human yep but NOT a human BEING who has rights..hahaha you just cant get it right, can you>???
suck: We even have fetal homicide laws that recognize the fetus as a human yep but NOT a human BEING who has rights..hahaha you just cant get it right, can you>???
it must be in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life. This means that if we are persons with the right to be free from aggression later in life, we are persons even at conception." "A False Assumption," Libertarians for Life,
Imagine you walked past a house and saw through the window that it was on fire and that inside there was an unconscious individual whom you believed you could save in a timely fashion. Would you treat the individual as what they are then, a person, and try to save them or treat them as what they would become shortly, a charred corpse, if you were to leave them alone?
Being a charred corpse is in that person's essential nature, it's what they'll be if you don't interfere.
"Being a charred corpse is in that person's essential nature.."
To be a charred corpse is not part of our essential nature, it is merely accidental change to our substance. You are using specious reasoning or as Socrates called it Sophism. If not human at conception then when?
When something is inevitable only under a certain set of circumstances it isn't essential. Outcomes are dependent on circumstances and circumstances are dependent on our decisions so outcomes are dependent on our decisions. Choosing not to act is morally equivalent to choosing to act.
What you call 'essential nature' is just 'nature when we choose to leave things alone'. People are vulnerable to fire so it is their 'essential nature' to become a charred corpse when there are encroaching flames.
I would accept that foetuses are human but not persons [in the moral sense]. We have to define what is a person, with rights, and what is an object, without rights, in order to make moral decisions. I would class foetuses, in the first few weeks at least, as objects, albeit ones with a chance to achieve personhood. Clearly later, if we choose for the pregnancy to continue, they becomes persons. There might just not be a clear point of transition from one state to the other.
@Vaatrad - I think the expression of an "essential nature" assumes a proper environment that allows human development. I don't think people mean "essential" in the way you are using it. They don't mean it is a nature which will be expressed in the face of any obstacle whatsoever.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ One day when youre a big boy(w/o womb & pregnancy envy) you'll learn that person has had the same definition since the beginning of this countries founding and your little wishes posted on YT will never chage that!
But that tissue is a unique individual. It even has its own personality. And you know it's going to turn into a conscious being, it's going to have hopes and dreams, it's going to enjoy life. So why can you stop it from doing that?
A foetus can't develop anything significant in terms of a personality in the first few months of gestation. There just isn't the brain development or time to learn.
The foetus is certainly a unique and distinct something but I would argue that being unique and distinct isn't sufficient for it to have rights, it must be able to suffer (where suffering is an understanding of pain and not just a response to it) and to develop a meaningful personality based on it's understanding of the world.
Imagine you walked past a house and saw through the window that it was on fire and that inside there was an unconscious individual whom you believed you could save in a timely fashion. Would you treat the individual as what they are then, a person, and try to save them or treat them as what they would become shortly, a charred corpse, if you were to leave them alone?
Choosing to not have sex prevents new lives from coming into the world. Choosing to use contraception prevents new lives from coming into the world. At what point is it too late to step in to prevent the new life from coming into the world? What makes dashing the hopes and dreams of someone who was aborted in the first few weeks of pregnancy worse than dashing the hopes and dreams of someone who was never conceived?
Vaatrad-Not many people may think it, but actually foetuses do have personalities! 50% of your personality is based on genes, and you have them from the moment you are conceived. So they do have a personality, just no way to express it yet. And I know being unique doesnt nesiserserarly give them rights, but it make them more special. There will never be anyone else like them, they cannot be replaced by another baby in the future. So killing them is a horrible waste. :(
Having the personality expressed is the important thing. There are countless personalities in combinations of egg and sperm that never meet, or even just in our imagination, that never get expressed. Why should those unexpressed personalities be less important than the unexpressed personality of a foetus? If no expression ever took place the effect of those personalities on the world remains purely theoretical.
There will never be anyone else like them and likewise there will never be anyone else like the baby that could replace them. The number of individuals that could possibly exist far exceeds the number that ever will. Every individual is special but they are all equally special so the loss of an individual from an abortion now is no more a loss than from not conceiving another child in the future. In both cases an individual never comes into the world.
While avoiding the need for an abortion is desirable it can't really be seen as a waste. Even with a limitless future ahead of us we will never see every possible individual born and their personality expressed. What we have to concentrate on is quality of life for those lucky enough be born and have their personality expressed.
Vaatrad-"If no expression ever took place the effect of those personalities on the world remains purely theoretical. " They would be able to express their personalities if you gave them a chance. "What we have to concentrate on is quality of life for those lucky enough be born..." Why not those lucky enough to be conceived?
There are plenty of people already and a vast future in which to have many more. What does bringing every pregnancy to term achieve? People are constantly passing up opportunities to have more children, to give expression of personality a chance, but that's good. We aren't looking to have every possible personality expressed just because we can. The goal is the well being of people in the world not the wealth of personalities in the world.
Cramming the world with as many people as we can just so that we can feel slightly closer to the impossible goal of having every possible personality expressed isn't desirable.
As you said, personality is only in part genetic. Every moment you spend, or don't spend, with a child will influence their personality anyway. All you can do is have their best interests in mind, not some target of a new personality you feel the world needs.
liz: gave them a chance A "chance"? one deifntion of chance is risk. Why in the world would anyone want to chance or risk a child welfare? liz: those lucky enough to be concieved Are you kidding? being concieved is lucky? How? Its ONLY lucky of you're loved and wanted. W/O that, one isnt lucky at all.
Vaatrad-foeteses can feel pain at a point when abortion is still leagal. DO you beleive that the time in wich abortion is legal should be shotend? And do you belive in late term abortions to save the mothers life? I'm just curious
I would still draw a distinction between a simple response to pain and suffering. Up to 24 weeks the foetus most likely isn't going to be able to suffer, its brain hasn't developed enough. After that it starts to get a little iffy so I'm happy with the law as it is in that regard. Fortunately most abortions happen well before the limit.
In late term abortions to save the mother's life where both the mother and the baby have an equal right to life you have to find other criteria on which to decide whom to save. It's an unpleasant choice to make but I think it's quite clear that the mother is the one you save.
Abortion is legal all the way through. Even after the baby is born the abortion doctor can still kill the baby. The People like Gianna Jessen who were born during in an abortion can still be killed. when Gianna Jessen was born that was illegal.
liz: you get DNA/ you are unique individual. A fetus isnt an individual...that insinuates a "person" & a fetus isnt a person. Individulas are not cocooned inside another's body
Sue-I thought thet there was a limit on how long into the pregnancy you can have a abortion. But I'm british maby it's diffrent. Still thats stupid, so a woman could have an abortion while she's in labor?
I want to define what distinguishes a person, an entity with rights and which we have a moral responsibility towards, from an object, an entity without rights. In the video I argue that merely being biologically human does not qualify an entity as a person.
Well I disagree with you. If the human being is breathing, has a heart beat, shows brain activity etc it is human and depriving the human being of it's right to live is murder. Simple as that I disagree with you.
You perhaps don't disagree with me as much as you think. Brain activity is the key point in my opinion and I would argue that there is a window in the first few weeks of gestation where brain activity is non-existent or negliable and a mind cannot be said to have begun. Do you think a zygote is person, it certainly has no brain activity, and if not when do you consider it to become one?
I was outlining the basis of my moral philosophy so I was giving the general case. Here we are talking about humans, so "the creature" is a developing human, but in the case of, for example, animal rights "the creature" would be an animal.
Heatbeat = life. Babies typically have a heartbeat just 21 days after conception. When the heart stops beating, this is called death. Do you understand, Vaatrad? When someone ends the life of something that is living, that is called murder. I know this is hard to grasp, but do you get the basic idea? Abortion is murder. Worse, it is the genocide of babies. Is there honestly anything worse than a mass baby genocide?
I agree that killing a person is murder and that it is wrong. I strongly disagree however that the presence of a heartbeat grants the foetus rights. The point of death is not defined as the heart stopping but at brain death. It is the mind of a thing that deserves rights. Bodies are only valuable so far as they support minds.
A few week old feotus is merely a biological machine, an object. That it will develop a mind at some point is not important when it is, and has only ever been, an object.
Not quite. Life, an unalienable right, is "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." An unborn baby has life as life is defined.
We do though need to distinguish between living organisms and people (people being those that can participate in the moral theatre having rights and responsibilities). If you don't want to grant equal rights to organisms all the way down to bacteria you need criteria to define what a person is. I think the key criterion should be some baseline of cognition such that it can think, feel and, cruicially, suffer. I think that few week old foetuses don't meet that criteroin.
i do find it funny that antichoicers love acting oh so concerned about potential people..but arent the slightest concerned for the homeless, starving, people in war zones etc
i think its just a topic that makes it easy to stand on a soapbox and shake fingers at others
Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing for sure whether or not a fetus would suffer during an abortion. It is not worth taking the chance if he or she might. Regardless, there are many humans that cannot participate in your "moral theater," such as those who are extremely brain-damaged. Those people still have rights, as should any unborn baby. And you know perfectly well that any form of a baby after conception is potential human life, not bacteria.
ttz: brain damaged.. those people still have rights as should any unborn abby. What damned rights can you give a fetus?? tell me!!! brian damaged people have rights because they were born and can USE them, for gods sake!
fuct: unless the brain is dmaaged to the point of sentinence then they have no right Bukll shit! ALL living human beings have rights! If they cant make their desisions known, someone will do it for them...but they DO have rights.. you lie about everything fuct! Why do you do that?
If they lose sentience they're not a being, just an empty shell. & yes they deserve the same rights all the dead get. & that was just a statement of my opinion. It's odd you state I lie about everything Suz, you've agreed with me at several points in the past.
Suezee, What drugs are you on? We've had the human being discussion before, and no a dead person is not a human being.& the dead get no more rights than the dead.
fuctup;dead isnt a humanbeing Thats marvelous....and abortion is legal. Horray!!!!!
heard the news? the Senate has just rejected tighter limits on federal funds for abortion in health care bill yes...We just keep winning!!! (big fat smile)
fuct: unless their brain is damnaged to the point of lose of sentience That means we could legally kill brain dead people at will. Can we do that ,dumbass? That means we could prevent medical care & let them suffer & die at will. Can we do that, dumbass? We cant do that because every person has the right to live and be taken care of.....................dumbass! fuct: not considered alive The word alive means NOTHING.You get dumber every minute. hahah
I'm a dumbass but you're the one who doesn't understand what the term "opinion" means. & In my opinion, brain dead people shouldn't get any more rights than any other dead person, & the law in most of the united states agrees with me, as the law states those who've lost brain function are no longer alive.
Antichoicers, in their noble crusade to ease the suffering of the unborn, are personally responsible for so much real world pain, it would be clearly just if they themselves felt it! Scarcity, global STORMING, and the destruction of LIFE ON EARTH you dark ages foolhardy, despite what you BELIEVE, science will NEVER let you go without the direct blame in history. Your cruelty to all sentient life shall not go unremembered!
Look the point is that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not human tissue. Now if you believe that the three are not considered a 'person'--a person with rights, then that is your belief and I don't have a problem with it.
What I do have a problem with, is an attempt to mislead people who watch these types of videos seeking to learn something, only to be intentionally deceived. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are aware of what human tissue is, right?
A feotus is a organism with multiple organs and many many different types of tissue. As I consider a person to be more than the sum of its parts, to be something beyond an amoral deterministic system, I did characterise feotuses as human tissue with the intention to convey that they had not yet gone beyond being a collection of parts and that the feotus itself should no more be considered a person than its parts, tissues, should.
I accept that a feotus is a couple of significant levels of complexity above tissue and I was working on the assumption that the viewers would know that but the intent of the comparision was to make analogous the moral significance, or lack thereof, of the two entities, tissue and feotus.
Right. I remember you saying that, yet, just because something has a collection of parts doesn't mean it IS that collection of parts. Otherwise post-birth humans are still nothing but a collection of tissue--equivalent to a collection of cells.
Thing is, most people already know the value of a fetus. The debate lies in what is more important: The life that has been born first, or the life yet to be born.
I respect that. Thanks for the conversation. After watching several other videos, you seem like an intelligent person. I diidn't mean to come off so strong. Take care.
Probably someone else who tried to copy my identity here. I do know some bible passages (I may have mentioned one a long time ago here) but I don't know enough to use them as arguments.
Either way, what does it matter to you if I do or don't. It's freedom of choice for me to do so/or not. Just down vote the comment down and move on...but only if you choose to. :)
I don't know...it's really a matter of opinion. The way I see it, the issue of abortion boils down to who or what (depending on how one defines a fetus/embryo) is more important...the one who's already been born, or the one yet to be born. I personally see them equally important--like I was just stating to the author of this video.
When you state "plenty of people...why not take care of them first?", who are you generally referring to?
the homeless...people in 3rd world countries..heck, tons of foster kids
it really is a matter of opinion...but I thank goddess I'm in a country where I can choose whether or not to have a medical procedure done on me. you know in mexico when women who've had botched abortions and go to hospitals for treatment...the cops are contacted
and just because its illegal doesnt mean there will be fewer...mexico and argentina have higher abortion rates than the US
Oh ok, I figured you meant those people. I know what you mean about Mexico. I lived there for a couple years and visit there at times, me being 15 miles from the US/Mexico border. It's like a different world there, with all its corruption. You're right, outlawed abortion means unsafe abortion. Unlike many prolife people who want to overturn Roe vs Wade and stop women at abortion clinics, I'm all for education & knowledge before hand. By the time a woman seeks abortion, its usually too late.
i hate the term prolife...IMO..its a holier than thou term for people who are for the death penalty and quagmires. they seem to *think* that life ends at birth
Where do you draw the line between a medical procedure and murder. What's the difference between sticking a tube in a baby's skull and sucking its brains out and putting a bullet between the eyes an anti life liberal piece of shit?
religions are faiths..and not a part of the govt..unless of course u live in a theocracy..but i dont think theocracies would tolerate punkasses like u
The government is controlled by religion. We have already won. Religious people are 99% of the world and we control practically everything that goes on.
It is of the utmost importance to determine at what point a new person with rights of their own comes into being. If you determine that that point is after conception then there is a window in which it is acceptable to abort the foetus.
Basically, it is essentail to be able to say when and why you think a foetus becomes a person with rights.
well basically if ladies can have the right to kill babies i think it is possible for me to have a right to kill certain peopel right? its the same thing
Supporters of abortion rights wouldn't consider foetuses to be people with rights. This would be something painstakingly reasoned and not just something to be manipulated to any end. Are you just completely dismissing any argument that foetuses are not people (at least not for some duration of the pregnancy)?
As far as sentience goes, its an arbitrary line of demarcation.
If we permit sentience as an arbitrary line of demarcation, there is nothing to stop anyone from moving that line to another point, say two years old, adolescence, adulthood, etc.
Also, since sentience can not be proven, only postulated, we have no guarantee that we aren't killing sentient beings.
The only way to ensure protection is to protect from the moment the life is created.
It is vital for moral decision making to determine what is a person and what is an object. It is lazy and cowardly to not make a best estimate of this (with some erring on the side of caution). Determining at what point an object becomes a person is difficult and something that could be abused but it is not something that should be abandoned. It is an arbitrary line of demarcation so far as it is at the foundation of moral decision making and it has be endlessly studied and deliberated over.
no suffering??? watch some abortion videos...there are a few where you get a look inside as the suction tube is incerted & begins to pull the child apart...limb from limb...watch that baby try to get away from it! then tell me it doesnt suffer, THEN tell me why this is all ok, when 93% of abortions wldnt be needed if the slut on the table had kept her fucking legs closed.
In the video I tried to distinguish pain, as a biological response to damage, from suffering, an experience with meaning attached to it. I'm sure that foetuses do react to being destroyed but I don't think the foetus will have any meaning attached to it, at least not in the first few months, and hence it isn't suffering.
I really dont care if you think they feel anything or whether or not you see them as humane, when the fact remains that only 1% of abortions are due to rape/incest...& 6% are health reasons....thats 93% cld have been avoided by making a different CHOICE. yes yes...EVERYBODY says "thats not realistic, to not have sex" Then I guess they see themselves as no better than animals in heat, ruled by their hormones, with no rational thought.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If you don't care whether or not I see abortions as morally justifiable then I'm not sure what we're discussing. This video is only concerned with the moral justification of abortion.
If something is morally justifiable it doesn't matter why it occurs, because there isn't any issue with it.
I believe in pro-choice as well, but i disagree with the joy and suffering part. i believe the answer comes more down to the fact of personal morality. If one decides that their reason for abortion is moral than so be it, if not then dont get an abortion.
But you are preventing it to gettting to a level of conciousness. If you fell into a coma today and the doctor expected you to wake up in a month....should I have the right to kill you because you arent councious at the moment?
Thats rediculous.
The baby is unique. It has unique dna seperate from its mother even before it starts to grow.
A developed conciousness is valuable even if it is temporarily suspended, i.e. in a coma. The video covered that.
An embryo or foetus is a tabula rasa, if even a tabula at all. No value is to be found in a tabula rasa. If it is never anything but a tabula rasa nothing valuable is lost and no harm done.
Unique DNA is meaningless. Identical twins share the same DNA but they are treated as individuals. DNA is a means to an end not the end itself. It's the structure that is important not the DNA.
Press Announcement by the Hell Center for Child Torture & Killing:
Hell's most respected and admired Herr Dr. Joseph Mengele is resigning as Center Director, effective immediately, as his long-awaited replacement, Dr. George Tiller, formerly of Wichita Kansas has arrived and has begun his new duties. Dr. Tiller issued a statement praising the work of Dr. Mengele and his staff and pledged to continue the quality work of his predecessor. Master Lucifer, expressed confidence in Dr. Tiller.
I think you missed the thrust of my argument. I am arguing that being biologically human isn't, or shouldn't be, the prerequisite for the right to life.
Vaatard. You are no doubt an evolutionist. I believe thats where the argument starts. If we all came from soup billions of years ago, then natural no value is placed on life or what has "become" life.
I believe conscious, aware beings have an inherent value and, conversely, that beings that have never been conscious or aware don't have such value. I believe value, or lack of it, is found in the nature of a thing, not from some deity's command. I'd rather think things through than just follow orders.
To each his own. I think not one being should have gone through life without trying God outside of religions. The word deity, that you mentioned, brings me back to a cold empty chapel where God has never even dwelt. You seem like a very bright person who strives to know as much as one can in a lifetime. I hope that you find or have found what it is you think life is all about.
p.s Please do not to take the evolution comment personally. It just my unshakalbe perception of things. You know, as well as I do, that it is healthy to discuss these things to strengthen beliefs.
By your argument then, it would be possible to take away another's right to life, by merely putting them into a permanent state of unconsciousness.
Why talk about a right to life at all??
If the right to life can be taken away at the malicious whims of another, why not the right over one's body? Why would I need to consent to organ donations, or to allow someone else who needs my blood or plasma to take it?
How can we build an argument about rights upon statements that diminish those rights?
If you rendered someone irrevocably unconsciousness I don't see much point in keeping the body alive. I would call putting someone into that level of unconsciousness murder but not the termination of their life support later.
I'm defining an object as something that has never achieved consciousness or that will never again achieve consciousness. It is not reasonable to give rights to objects.
It is wrong to encroach on the rights of a conscious entity, a person, but when that entity becomes an object it loses those rights.
A person is more than the some of their parts. Just having a body doesn't entitle you to rights, its just a biological machine. The body can however support a consciousness which does have rights, including to the body which supports it.
Imagine you walked past a house and saw through the window that it was on fire and that inside there was an unconscious individual who you believed you could save in a timely fashion. Would you treat the individual as what they are then, a person, and try to save them or treat them as what they would become shortly, a charred corpse, if you were to leave them alone?
That an embryo will grow into a human [baby] is no longer inevitable when we have the power, and responsibility, to control it.
a hunk of flesh does, and thats all the fetus is. and dont bring religion into it. thats your beleif about god, but nobody knows if its a true fact or not.
NOT ONLY DO IDENTICAL TWINS NOT SHARE THE SAME DNA THEY DONT SHARE THE SAME FINGER PRINTS EATHER.! that makes my point even stronger. if the un-born has his/hers own DNA, finger prints that no one in the entire universe shares thats makes them unique from mom and everyone else they also have their own heart, blood, fingers, toes, head, mind, AND body! SO THEY ARE NOT A PART OF MOM NOR HER POSSISION/CHOICE.! - THIS PROVES THAT ABORTION- BREAKS THE 14 AMENDIMENT.!
Given that I didn't argue in the video that a foetus is part of the mother's body you seem to be quite keen to argue this point. I've only argued that a foetus, at least for the first few weeks of gestation, doesn't qualify as a person and hence doesn't qualify for protection under the 14th Ammendment of your constitution. I argue that having a unique set of DNA doesn't qualify an entity as a person. I argue that a body, and hence DNA, is only important so far as it supports a conscious mind.
I didn't make my position on that particually clear in the video.
A mind, a person's thoughts, feelings, memories and personality, though not necessarily currently active, is what is important. If someone is in a coma and there is the possibility to recover their mind, then they should be kept alive. If someone is in a coma and there is no possibility to recover the mind, i.e. they are brain dead, then there is no imperative to keep them alive, all you have is a body.
That's really more of a technical point. I'm happy to err on the side of caution in the cases of uncertainty to take into account the limits of our knowledge and abilities.
Well, I don't agree with where you stand, but I'm extremely happy to see that you have given the subject such degree of thought. Not nearly enough of that (on either side of the debate).
Someone who is truly brain dead, i.e. with no chance of recovery at all, I would not, or would no longer, consider a person, though they would still be counted as human.
Actually, brain death is viewed medically as the end of human life... when a person is clinically considered "brain dead" their organs can be harvested for use in keeping another person alive (based upon their will and/or their loved ones wishes.)
besk:Wouldn't that sort of lead to the brain dead not being considered human LOLOL, Do you relly think we can't tell the human species from any other, if they are brain dead?
Wow, you really need to watch the video before you respond to other people's responses to the video. Heck, you could at least read the comments from the uploader on my comments.
VAATRAD: yes the twins will have "identical genetic constitution" or genetic makeup BUT they do NOT share the same DNA! your monozygotic twins wikipedia (maby u forgot to read this part) - "although they have nearly identical DNA,[13] environmental conditions both inside the womb and throughout their lives influence the switching on and off of various genes. " NEARLY IDENTICAL DNA.. NOT THE SAME!!
I did already cover that in an earlier comment. "Genes may be expressed differently in the identical twins, due to environmental factors, and there is a very small chance of mutations occuring but they both start with the same DNA."
Why would it matter if there DNA was identical? Would you not count individuals, or individual minds, rather than sets of unique DNA?
it matters b/c we are taking about abortion and a un born baby dosent have a unique mind yet! just unique dna. which sets it appart from mom. and therefor cannot be a possision/choice. ABORTION IS WRONG! what i have to say to all women: DONT SPREAD YOUR LEGS AND GET FUCKED IF U DONT WANT A BABY! their is over 100 different types of birthcontrol the ring, patch, pill, shot, diafram, marania, condoms, balloons(female condoms), simply pulling out. i could go on and on. no need 4 un protected sex.
dan:born baby dosent have a unique mind yet! just unique dna. which sets it appart from mom. and therefor cannot be a possision/choice. DNA makes NO difference. There is nothing that makes a fetus belong to anyone but the woman. dan:their is over 100 different types of birthcontrol/////// simply pulling out. LOL. thats the one that accounts for MANY abortions. get you facts before you mess around!
"LOL. thats the one that accounts for MANY abortions. get you facts before you mess around! "
okay! 93% of all abortions done are due to (social reasons.. i.e. child was unwanted!)- sounds like birth control to me! and their is over 100 diff. types of b.c. and a fetus dosnt belong to anyone b/c he/she has his/her own dna! thats makes him/her THEIR OWN PERSON!!! not a part of moms body!! smart one!
dan:93% of all abortions done are due to (social reasons.. i.e. child was unwanted!)- sounds like birth control to me! OMG!! Are you frickin kidding? is there an age limit for posters in here????? dan, did you read what you just said(above)????? Does it really sound logical to you???? Goodbye...........................
ShA:sweetheart, 93% of all abortions ARE done for that reason. and 1% is from rape So what, pumpkin lips? sha: Even then, a woman has no right to murder hahahah, then how come a MILLIONS happen every year? OOps, guess she DOES have that right! Now, I'm going to talk to someone who has a brian & uses it. Bye!
O_O
kirstiedale3 1 month ago
at 9 weeks 90% of it's body functions are the same as a adult, but yet you still kill it, 18 weeks memory and reason are there but yet you can kill it, it's murder from the time it is conceived till the time that person dies
mwjayjr 7 months ago
@mwjayjr If you have top lie to justify your beliefs, then you should change your beliefs,
Fuctmentality 7 months ago
@Fuctmentality where is the lie, have you done your research
mwjayjr 7 months ago
@mwjayjr "where is the lie,"
Here
" 18 weeks memory and reason are there"
Fetal memory hasn't been shown before 30 weeks, & the ability to reason doesn't come till after birth.
& here
"it's murder from the time it is conceived"
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being or the killing of a person with no legal or moral justification. It's legal to kill fetuses, & at conception they are not persons
"have you done your research"
Yes, only I didn't pull my research from prolife website.
Fuctmentality 7 months ago
@Fuctmentality let me guess you went to a pro choice or science website were they condone it. See any science website that supports stem cell research will advocate abortion in anyway because it is one of the easiest ways to get stem cells. And last time I checked a fetus is a human if it is inside a human, can't be a dog or something of another species.
mwjayjr 7 months ago
Comment removed
Fuctmentality 7 months ago
@mwjayjr "you went to a pro choice or science website were they condone it."
Scientific American?
"See any science website that supports stem cell research will advocate abortion in anyway because it is one of the easiest ways to get stem cells"
No actually it's easier to get embryonic stem cells from in vitro clinic throwaways. & Are you actually stating that science is a conspiracy?
" And last time I checked a fetus is a human "
Straw man is made of straw.
Fuctmentality 7 months ago
@Fuctmentality you took the last part out of context smart one, but what can I expect from a moron.....see I know your type, you have nothing better to do than try to prove yer right on everything, and from my observation of your comments on another video, you have the moral values of a Nazi. I done arguing the point, not worth the stress it gives me.
mwjayjr 7 months ago
@mwjayjr That would be a non sequiter, an ad hom & a false accusation.
You never started arguing a point you just lied, & when called out you tried to claim science is a conspiracy motivated by a blatant falsehood & provided a strawman. & When that was pointed out you claimed I took your straw man out of context (I didn't) & called me a NAZI moron.
See I know your type, you will never consider the possibility that you're wrong, even when you have to resort to doing all that to justify yourself.
Fuctmentality 7 months ago
@Fuctmentality Whatever, you can believe that, everyone is entitled to their own, no matter how distorted, opinion
mwjayjr 7 months ago
@mwjayjr Indeed, even if they have to lie, make up batshsit insane conspiracies & call people NAZIs to justify.
Fuctmentality 7 months ago
@Fuctmentality yer further proving what I said as you keep trying to get me to attack your belief again. and I know exactly what you have... narcissistic personality disorder.
mwjayjr 7 months ago
@mwjayjr You never attacked my beliefs, you don't even know what any of my beliefs are. You just lied & when I pointed that out you said science a conspiracy, & when it was pointed out that what you claim is the motivation for the conspiracy makes no sense & is based off false information, you call me a NAZI moron. & I just think such lousy justifications are pathetic as is attacking people who point out that you speaking bullshit.
Fuctmentality 7 months ago
@Fuctmentality narcissistic personality disorder. your just further proving me right. stop while you're ahead
mwjayjr 7 months ago
@mwjayjr Let's see,
Your lying, check
You claiming the reason science does not agree with your lies a conspiracy, check
You calling those whom point these things out NAZI morons; check
The fact that you need to do all these things combined to justify yourself makes you uber pathetic ; check.
I covered everything, I have nothing else to say.
Fuctmentality 7 months ago
@Fuctmentality O and you also want the last word.....here's my last little bit to you. If you are going to try and prove someone wrong don't associate words that weren't related, don't paraphrase cause it take credibility from your argument, and finally, you can't choose a persons theory on something so don't it makes you look bad when a person never said that
mwjayjr 7 months ago
@mwjayj Lulwat? I didn't paraphrase. I just pointed out I've covered everything, from you lying to you claiming that the reason science contradicts you is conspiracy, to you calling me a NAZI moron for pointing it out. Non of those things were paraphrased. Well I've said all I have to, you have a nice pathetic life.
Fuctmentality 7 months ago
We all know that a fetus is 'human offspring', how silly to say otherwise. But that doesn't make it a living human being. If you look at what is being developed & whether it is functionable, would it survive if 'born' at this stage? In early pregnancy, the answer is NO. So how can it be compared to someone already born? If the embryo/fetus is expelled before 12 weeks, it's called a miscarriage not a death. Why can't the woman decide for her fetus to continue developing or terminate development?
AZAP28 1 year ago 3
You cannot kill a born human being, because it already is outside the woman’s domain. When you extract a fetus from the womb it is call abortion. When you kill a baby, child or adult is call murder.
ABORTION IS LEGAL
MURDER IS ILLEGAL
AND THAT IS JUST THE WAY LAW IS.
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
This iDr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. writes: "The underlying premise in the arguments pro-abortionists give against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons. They are saying that a living being can undergo a radical, essential change in its nature during its lifetime. But there is a logical problem here. If the change was biologically inevitable from conception, given time, then this change is not a change in essential nature.s because if the being naturally initiates the change,
teton99 2 years ago
tet: pro-abortionists give against fetal personhood is that non-persons can change into persons.
THEY DO change into persons atre birth. A non personis an individual who lacks, loses, or is forcibly denied social or legal status, especially basic human rights, or who effectively ceases to have a record of their existence within a society from a point of view of traceability, documentation, or existence
THAT IS A FETUS. When born, it obtains all that stuff that makes it a person.LOL
Sueezee1 1 year ago
@Sueezee1 - So if the law takes basic human rights away from women and forcibly denies them social status you agree they women will no longer be persons?
Sukov 1 year ago
suk: So if the law takes basic human rights away from women and forcibly denies them social status you agree they women will no longer be persons?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ No, why???
Sueezee1 1 year ago
@Sueezee1 - That was the first definition you gave below for what a person is. So apparently you do not actually hold to that definition. And we can have record of the existence of a fetus. We even have fetal homicide laws that recognize the fetus as a human.
Sukov 1 year ago
@Sukov ::That was the first definition you gave below for what a person is. What is???
suck: So apparently you do not actually hold to that definition What defintion???
suck: And we can have record of the existence of a fetus. hahahaha.. NO there is no legal record of fetuses.. Dont try to fast talk me..youre not smart enough.
Sueezee1 1 year ago
@Sueezee1 - Just read up to the first post of yours I responded to. I was referring to a definition of person that you posted. So are you saying a fetus is not a person because it has no legal record? Yes or no.
Sukov 1 year ago
@Sukov says: So are you saying a fetus is not a person because it has no legal record?
~~~~~~~~~ Nope, because it has no legal rights that in turn give them the title person.
Sueezee1 1 year ago
@Sukov :: We even have fetal homicide laws that recognize the fetus as a human yep but NOT a human BEING who has rights..hahaha you just cant get it right, can you>???
Sueezee1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
suck: We even have fetal homicide laws that recognize the fetus as a human yep but NOT a human BEING who has rights..hahaha you just cant get it right, can you>???
Sueezee1 1 year ago
@Sukov says: And we can have record of the existence of a fetus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LOLOL are you saying we know when women are pregnant? That wont work sweetheart, there is NO legal exsistnce for a fetus.
Sueezee1 1 year ago 2
it must be in its nature from the beginning to do so. If it is in its nature to do so, then despite any changes in such characteristics as independence, place of residence, physical development, or demonstration of mental ability, what the being is in later life is what the being is from the beginning of its life. This means that if we are persons with the right to be free from aggression later in life, we are persons even at conception." "A False Assumption," Libertarians for Life,
teton99 2 years ago
Imagine you walked past a house and saw through the window that it was on fire and that inside there was an unconscious individual whom you believed you could save in a timely fashion. Would you treat the individual as what they are then, a person, and try to save them or treat them as what they would become shortly, a charred corpse, if you were to leave them alone?
Being a charred corpse is in that person's essential nature, it's what they'll be if you don't interfere.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
Vaatrad says...
"Being a charred corpse is in that person's essential nature.."
To be a charred corpse is not part of our essential nature, it is merely accidental change to our substance. You are using specious reasoning or as Socrates called it Sophism. If not human at conception then when?
teton99 2 years ago
When something is inevitable only under a certain set of circumstances it isn't essential. Outcomes are dependent on circumstances and circumstances are dependent on our decisions so outcomes are dependent on our decisions. Choosing not to act is morally equivalent to choosing to act.
What you call 'essential nature' is just 'nature when we choose to leave things alone'. People are vulnerable to fire so it is their 'essential nature' to become a charred corpse when there are encroaching flames.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
I would accept that foetuses are human but not persons [in the moral sense]. We have to define what is a person, with rights, and what is an object, without rights, in order to make moral decisions. I would class foetuses, in the first few weeks at least, as objects, albeit ones with a chance to achieve personhood. Clearly later, if we choose for the pregnancy to continue, they becomes persons. There might just not be a clear point of transition from one state to the other.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
@Vaatrad - I think the expression of an "essential nature" assumes a proper environment that allows human development. I don't think people mean "essential" in the way you are using it. They don't mean it is a nature which will be expressed in the face of any obstacle whatsoever.
Sukov 1 year ago
tet:we are persons even at conception.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ One day when youre a big boy(w/o womb & pregnancy envy) you'll learn that person has had the same definition since the beginning of this countries founding and your little wishes posted on YT will never chage that!
Sueezee1 1 year ago
But that tissue is a unique individual. It even has its own personality. And you know it's going to turn into a conscious being, it's going to have hopes and dreams, it's going to enjoy life. So why can you stop it from doing that?
lizzyluv96 2 years ago
A foetus can't develop anything significant in terms of a personality in the first few months of gestation. There just isn't the brain development or time to learn.
The foetus is certainly a unique and distinct something but I would argue that being unique and distinct isn't sufficient for it to have rights, it must be able to suffer (where suffering is an understanding of pain and not just a response to it) and to develop a meaningful personality based on it's understanding of the world.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
Imagine you walked past a house and saw through the window that it was on fire and that inside there was an unconscious individual whom you believed you could save in a timely fashion. Would you treat the individual as what they are then, a person, and try to save them or treat them as what they would become shortly, a charred corpse, if you were to leave them alone?
Vaatrad 2 years ago
Choosing to not have sex prevents new lives from coming into the world. Choosing to use contraception prevents new lives from coming into the world. At what point is it too late to step in to prevent the new life from coming into the world? What makes dashing the hopes and dreams of someone who was aborted in the first few weeks of pregnancy worse than dashing the hopes and dreams of someone who was never conceived?
Vaatrad 2 years ago
Vaatrad-Not many people may think it, but actually foetuses do have personalities! 50% of your personality is based on genes, and you have them from the moment you are conceived. So they do have a personality, just no way to express it yet. And I know being unique doesnt nesiserserarly give them rights, but it make them more special. There will never be anyone else like them, they cannot be replaced by another baby in the future. So killing them is a horrible waste. :(
lizzyluv96 2 years ago
Having the personality expressed is the important thing. There are countless personalities in combinations of egg and sperm that never meet, or even just in our imagination, that never get expressed. Why should those unexpressed personalities be less important than the unexpressed personality of a foetus? If no expression ever took place the effect of those personalities on the world remains purely theoretical.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
There will never be anyone else like them and likewise there will never be anyone else like the baby that could replace them. The number of individuals that could possibly exist far exceeds the number that ever will. Every individual is special but they are all equally special so the loss of an individual from an abortion now is no more a loss than from not conceiving another child in the future. In both cases an individual never comes into the world.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
While avoiding the need for an abortion is desirable it can't really be seen as a waste. Even with a limitless future ahead of us we will never see every possible individual born and their personality expressed. What we have to concentrate on is quality of life for those lucky enough be born and have their personality expressed.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
Vaatrad-"If no expression ever took place the effect of those personalities on the world remains purely theoretical. " They would be able to express their personalities if you gave them a chance. "What we have to concentrate on is quality of life for those lucky enough be born..." Why not those lucky enough to be conceived?
lizzyluv96 2 years ago
There are plenty of people already and a vast future in which to have many more. What does bringing every pregnancy to term achieve? People are constantly passing up opportunities to have more children, to give expression of personality a chance, but that's good. We aren't looking to have every possible personality expressed just because we can. The goal is the well being of people in the world not the wealth of personalities in the world.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
Cramming the world with as many people as we can just so that we can feel slightly closer to the impossible goal of having every possible personality expressed isn't desirable.
As you said, personality is only in part genetic. Every moment you spend, or don't spend, with a child will influence their personality anyway. All you can do is have their best interests in mind, not some target of a new personality you feel the world needs.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
liz: gave them a chance A "chance"? one deifntion of chance is risk. Why in the world would anyone want to chance or risk a child welfare? liz: those lucky enough to be concieved Are you kidding? being concieved is lucky? How? Its ONLY lucky of you're loved and wanted. W/O that, one isnt lucky at all.
Sueezee1 2 years ago
Vaatrad-foeteses can feel pain at a point when abortion is still leagal. DO you beleive that the time in wich abortion is legal should be shotend? And do you belive in late term abortions to save the mothers life? I'm just curious
lizzyluv96 2 years ago
I would still draw a distinction between a simple response to pain and suffering. Up to 24 weeks the foetus most likely isn't going to be able to suffer, its brain hasn't developed enough. After that it starts to get a little iffy so I'm happy with the law as it is in that regard. Fortunately most abortions happen well before the limit.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
In late term abortions to save the mother's life where both the mother and the baby have an equal right to life you have to find other criteria on which to decide whom to save. It's an unpleasant choice to make but I think it's quite clear that the mother is the one you save.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
yeah the most premature baby born was born at 22 weeks. And yes the baby does have a brain and is living.
TheMasamune444 2 years ago
liz: fetus can feel pain when abortion is still legal. Abortion is legal up to the last days. What do you mean?
Sueezee1 2 years ago
Abortion is legal all the way through. Even after the baby is born the abortion doctor can still kill the baby. The People like Gianna Jessen who were born during in an abortion can still be killed. when Gianna Jessen was born that was illegal.
TheMasamune444 2 years ago
liz: that tissue is unique individual
Not until ts born. You speak like an embryo equates to a 4 yr old.
Sueezee1 2 years ago
Sue: "Not until ts born"
You get your DNA the moment you are conceived, not when you are born. So yes they are a unique individual
lizzyluv96 2 years ago
liz: you get DNA/ you are unique individual. A fetus isnt an individual...that insinuates a "person" & a fetus isnt a person. Individulas are not cocooned inside another's body
Sueezee1 2 years ago
Sue-I thought thet there was a limit on how long into the pregnancy you can have a abortion. But I'm british maby it's diffrent. Still thats stupid, so a woman could have an abortion while she's in labor?
lizzyluv96 2 years ago
Guess you wanna play word games with what constitutes a human life then.
thegoddelusional203 2 years ago
I want to define what distinguishes a person, an entity with rights and which we have a moral responsibility towards, from an object, an entity without rights. In the video I argue that merely being biologically human does not qualify an entity as a person.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
Well I disagree with you. If the human being is breathing, has a heart beat, shows brain activity etc it is human and depriving the human being of it's right to live is murder. Simple as that I disagree with you.
thegoddelusional203 2 years ago
You perhaps don't disagree with me as much as you think. Brain activity is the key point in my opinion and I would argue that there is a window in the first few weeks of gestation where brain activity is non-existent or negliable and a mind cannot be said to have begun. Do you think a zygote is person, it certainly has no brain activity, and if not when do you consider it to become one?
Vaatrad 2 years ago
thegod: wanna play word games. Everything about abortion is "word games".i.e, , semantics...learn them. They are what make abortion laws binding!
Sueezee1 2 years ago
The creature? You mean the human being?
thegoddelusional203 2 years ago
I was outlining the basis of my moral philosophy so I was giving the general case. Here we are talking about humans, so "the creature" is a developing human, but in the case of, for example, animal rights "the creature" would be an animal.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
Heatbeat = life. Babies typically have a heartbeat just 21 days after conception. When the heart stops beating, this is called death. Do you understand, Vaatrad? When someone ends the life of something that is living, that is called murder. I know this is hard to grasp, but do you get the basic idea? Abortion is murder. Worse, it is the genocide of babies. Is there honestly anything worse than a mass baby genocide?
ttzjoeb 2 years ago
I agree that killing a person is murder and that it is wrong. I strongly disagree however that the presence of a heartbeat grants the foetus rights. The point of death is not defined as the heart stopping but at brain death. It is the mind of a thing that deserves rights. Bodies are only valuable so far as they support minds.
A few week old feotus is merely a biological machine, an object. That it will develop a mind at some point is not important when it is, and has only ever been, an object.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
Not quite. Life, an unalienable right, is "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." An unborn baby has life as life is defined.
ttzjoeb 2 years ago
We do though need to distinguish between living organisms and people (people being those that can participate in the moral theatre having rights and responsibilities). If you don't want to grant equal rights to organisms all the way down to bacteria you need criteria to define what a person is. I think the key criterion should be some baseline of cognition such that it can think, feel and, cruicially, suffer. I think that few week old foetuses don't meet that criteroin.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
i do find it funny that antichoicers love acting oh so concerned about potential people..but arent the slightest concerned for the homeless, starving, people in war zones etc
i think its just a topic that makes it easy to stand on a soapbox and shake fingers at others
they can be funny though :)
Priests4Lies 2 years ago
Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing for sure whether or not a fetus would suffer during an abortion. It is not worth taking the chance if he or she might. Regardless, there are many humans that cannot participate in your "moral theater," such as those who are extremely brain-damaged. Those people still have rights, as should any unborn baby. And you know perfectly well that any form of a baby after conception is potential human life, not bacteria.
ttzjoeb 2 years ago
ttz: brain damaged.. those people still have rights as should any unborn abby. What damned rights can you give a fetus?? tell me!!! brian damaged people have rights because they were born and can USE them, for gods sake!
Sueezee1 2 years ago
Here's the correct pecking order:
People>animals>amoeba>treestump>antilifers
333jesusislord3333 2 years ago 2
you're brain damaged, you subhuman antichrist son of a bitch. There's a special place in hell for those who approve of harming children.
333jesusislord3333 2 years ago
"Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing for sure whether or not a fetus would suffer during an abortion"
Yes there is actually neuroscience is our friend.
"those who are extremely brain-damaged. Those people still have rights"
Unless there brain is damaged to the point of loss of sentience, then they have no rights, as they are no longer considered alive.
Fuctmentality 2 years ago
fuct: unless the brain is dmaaged to the point of sentinence then they have no right Bukll shit! ALL living human beings have rights! If they cant make their desisions known, someone will do it for them...but they DO have rights.. you lie about everything fuct! Why do you do that?
Sueezee1 2 years ago
If they lose sentience they're not a being, just an empty shell. & yes they deserve the same rights all the dead get. & that was just a statement of my opinion. It's odd you state I lie about everything Suz, you've agreed with me at several points in the past.
Fuctmentality 2 years ago
fuct: just an empty shell They STILL have rights. Just because they arent THEIR rights dosent mean they dont have them.
fuct: lose sentience they are not a being. " Being: meanNOTHING...they ARE human BEINGS & that means they have rights. learn the law!
fuct: odd you state i lie Only a liar would say that!
Sueezee1 2 years ago
Suezee, What drugs are you on? We've had the human being discussion before, and no a dead person is not a human being.& the dead get no more rights than the dead.
Fuctmentality 2 years ago
fuctup;dead isnt a humanbeing Thats marvelous....and abortion is legal. Horray!!!!!
heard the news? the Senate has just rejected tighter limits on federal funds for abortion in health care bill yes...We just keep winning!!! (big fat smile)
Sueezee1 2 years ago
ROFLOL, now your pro,life. I knew it.
bcmasta1returns 2 years ago
fuct: unless their brain is damnaged to the point of lose of sentience That means we could legally kill brain dead people at will. Can we do that ,dumbass? That means we could prevent medical care & let them suffer & die at will. Can we do that, dumbass? We cant do that because every person has the right to live and be taken care of.....................dumbass! fuct: not considered alive The word alive means NOTHING.You get dumber every minute. hahah
Sueezee1 2 years ago
I'm a dumbass but you're the one who doesn't understand what the term "opinion" means. & In my opinion, brain dead people shouldn't get any more rights than any other dead person, & the law in most of the united states agrees with me, as the law states those who've lost brain function are no longer alive.
Fuctmentality 2 years ago
Antichoicers, in their noble crusade to ease the suffering of the unborn, are personally responsible for so much real world pain, it would be clearly just if they themselves felt it! Scarcity, global STORMING, and the destruction of LIFE ON EARTH you dark ages foolhardy, despite what you BELIEVE, science will NEVER let you go without the direct blame in history. Your cruelty to all sentient life shall not go unremembered!
By: gene diseased
savercorp 2 years ago
i read somewhere that the fetus heartbeat is just an echo of the womans heartbeat...its not even fully formed....fuck..nothing is at that point
i just have a hard time calling it a heartbeat when its just the beginning of a heart
ty for being for understanding
as a female, it bothers me that the vast majority of those that are against abortions cant have them
check out antichoice sites... theyre overwhelmingly run by men with a few women sprinkled on top
Priests4Lies 2 years ago
LOL this is the biggest load of crap from the pro-choice I've ever heard. I have yet to hear them all though.
Just some human tissue huh? It's obvious to me you have no understanding of the tasks 'actual' human tissue does in the human body.
Danny123456789009876 2 years ago 2
And which of those tasks make the tissue a person and not an object?
Vaatrad 2 years ago
Look the point is that a zygote/embryo/fetus is not human tissue. Now if you believe that the three are not considered a 'person'--a person with rights, then that is your belief and I don't have a problem with it.
What I do have a problem with, is an attempt to mislead people who watch these types of videos seeking to learn something, only to be intentionally deceived. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are aware of what human tissue is, right?
Danny123456789009876 2 years ago
A feotus is a organism with multiple organs and many many different types of tissue. As I consider a person to be more than the sum of its parts, to be something beyond an amoral deterministic system, I did characterise feotuses as human tissue with the intention to convey that they had not yet gone beyond being a collection of parts and that the feotus itself should no more be considered a person than its parts, tissues, should.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
I accept that a feotus is a couple of significant levels of complexity above tissue and I was working on the assumption that the viewers would know that but the intent of the comparision was to make analogous the moral significance, or lack thereof, of the two entities, tissue and feotus.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
Right. I remember you saying that, yet, just because something has a collection of parts doesn't mean it IS that collection of parts. Otherwise post-birth humans are still nothing but a collection of tissue--equivalent to a collection of cells.
Thing is, most people already know the value of a fetus. The debate lies in what is more important: The life that has been born first, or the life yet to be born.
Danny123456789009876 2 years ago 2
I'm going to go with the life that has been born first.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
I respect that. Thanks for the conversation. After watching several other videos, you seem like an intelligent person. I diidn't mean to come off so strong. Take care.
Danny123456789009876 2 years ago
omg...you're not spamming that silly passage from the buybull as u do on all other threads
are u feeling ok?
Priests4Lies 2 years ago
What are you talking about? I haven't posted any biblical passages here, or anywhere.
Danny123456789009876 2 years ago 2
hmmm..well..this one danny guy with a bunch of numbers after his name chronically copy/pastes the same biblical passages over and over
i'm pretty sure its a danny12345 something
i'll get back to u on that
anyways...you're a lot more thoughtful than he ever could be :)
Priests4Lies 2 years ago
Probably someone else who tried to copy my identity here. I do know some bible passages (I may have mentioned one a long time ago here) but I don't know enough to use them as arguments.
Either way, what does it matter to you if I do or don't. It's freedom of choice for me to do so/or not. Just down vote the comment down and move on...but only if you choose to. :)
Danny123456789009876 2 years ago 2
oh i know..i was just blown away cuz i thought he actually thought up a post
very strange sight LOL
anyway...i like freedom of choice too
i really dont get the big deal about embryos...there are plenty of people here who need tending to..why not take care of them first?
Priests4Lies 2 years ago
I don't know...it's really a matter of opinion. The way I see it, the issue of abortion boils down to who or what (depending on how one defines a fetus/embryo) is more important...the one who's already been born, or the one yet to be born. I personally see them equally important--like I was just stating to the author of this video.
When you state "plenty of people...why not take care of them first?", who are you generally referring to?
Danny123456789009876 2 years ago 2
the homeless...people in 3rd world countries..heck, tons of foster kids
it really is a matter of opinion...but I thank goddess I'm in a country where I can choose whether or not to have a medical procedure done on me. you know in mexico when women who've had botched abortions and go to hospitals for treatment...the cops are contacted
and just because its illegal doesnt mean there will be fewer...mexico and argentina have higher abortion rates than the US
Priests4Lies 2 years ago
Oh ok, I figured you meant those people. I know what you mean about Mexico. I lived there for a couple years and visit there at times, me being 15 miles from the US/Mexico border. It's like a different world there, with all its corruption. You're right, outlawed abortion means unsafe abortion. Unlike many prolife people who want to overturn Roe vs Wade and stop women at abortion clinics, I'm all for education & knowledge before hand. By the time a woman seeks abortion, its usually too late.
Danny123456789009876 2 years ago 2
i hate the term prolife...IMO..its a holier than thou term for people who are for the death penalty and quagmires. they seem to *think* that life ends at birth
Priests4Lies 2 years ago
Where do you draw the line between a medical procedure and murder. What's the difference between sticking a tube in a baby's skull and sucking its brains out and putting a bullet between the eyes an anti life liberal piece of shit?
333jesusislord3333 2 years ago
Where do you draw the line between a person and an object?
Vaatrad 2 years ago
A person is a child of God. An object is not.
333jesusislord3333 2 years ago
there is no god u fucking idiot
religions are faiths..and not a part of the govt..unless of course u live in a theocracy..but i dont think theocracies would tolerate punkasses like u
Priests4Lies 2 years ago
The government is controlled by religion. We have already won. Religious people are 99% of the world and we control practically everything that goes on.
333jesusislord3333 2 years ago
lol a fetus becomes what again?
laneer7 2 years ago
so it matters how you look at a baby ?
laneer7 2 years ago
It is of the utmost importance to determine at what point a new person with rights of their own comes into being. If you determine that that point is after conception then there is a window in which it is acceptable to abort the foetus.
Basically, it is essentail to be able to say when and why you think a foetus becomes a person with rights.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
well basically if ladies can have the right to kill babies i think it is possible for me to have a right to kill certain peopel right? its the same thing
laneer7 2 years ago
Supporters of abortion rights wouldn't consider foetuses to be people with rights. This would be something painstakingly reasoned and not just something to be manipulated to any end. Are you just completely dismissing any argument that foetuses are not people (at least not for some duration of the pregnancy)?
Vaatrad 2 years ago
it does have a right to life and you are just weird
laneer7 2 years ago
I would be interested to hear your argument in support of your statement.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
As far as sentience goes, its an arbitrary line of demarcation.
If we permit sentience as an arbitrary line of demarcation, there is nothing to stop anyone from moving that line to another point, say two years old, adolescence, adulthood, etc.
Also, since sentience can not be proven, only postulated, we have no guarantee that we aren't killing sentient beings.
The only way to ensure protection is to protect from the moment the life is created.
From,
Metaphysicalpolitics
teton99 2 years ago
It is vital for moral decision making to determine what is a person and what is an object. It is lazy and cowardly to not make a best estimate of this (with some erring on the side of caution). Determining at what point an object becomes a person is difficult and something that could be abused but it is not something that should be abandoned. It is an arbitrary line of demarcation so far as it is at the foundation of moral decision making and it has be endlessly studied and deliberated over.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
no suffering??? watch some abortion videos...there are a few where you get a look inside as the suction tube is incerted & begins to pull the child apart...limb from limb...watch that baby try to get away from it! then tell me it doesnt suffer, THEN tell me why this is all ok, when 93% of abortions wldnt be needed if the slut on the table had kept her fucking legs closed.
taffygirlgood 2 years ago
In the video I tried to distinguish pain, as a biological response to damage, from suffering, an experience with meaning attached to it. I'm sure that foetuses do react to being destroyed but I don't think the foetus will have any meaning attached to it, at least not in the first few months, and hence it isn't suffering.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
I really dont care if you think they feel anything or whether or not you see them as humane, when the fact remains that only 1% of abortions are due to rape/incest...& 6% are health reasons....thats 93% cld have been avoided by making a different CHOICE. yes yes...EVERYBODY says "thats not realistic, to not have sex" Then I guess they see themselves as no better than animals in heat, ruled by their hormones, with no rational thought.
taffygirlgood 2 years ago
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If you don't care whether or not I see abortions as morally justifiable then I'm not sure what we're discussing. This video is only concerned with the moral justification of abortion.
If something is morally justifiable it doesn't matter why it occurs, because there isn't any issue with it.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
I believe in pro-choice as well, but i disagree with the joy and suffering part. i believe the answer comes more down to the fact of personal morality. If one decides that their reason for abortion is moral than so be it, if not then dont get an abortion.
aragorn3812 2 years ago
But you are preventing it to gettting to a level of conciousness. If you fell into a coma today and the doctor expected you to wake up in a month....should I have the right to kill you because you arent councious at the moment?
Thats rediculous.
The baby is unique. It has unique dna seperate from its mother even before it starts to grow.
woohooitscrystal 2 years ago
A developed conciousness is valuable even if it is temporarily suspended, i.e. in a coma. The video covered that.
An embryo or foetus is a tabula rasa, if even a tabula at all. No value is to be found in a tabula rasa. If it is never anything but a tabula rasa nothing valuable is lost and no harm done.
Unique DNA is meaningless. Identical twins share the same DNA but they are treated as individuals. DNA is a means to an end not the end itself. It's the structure that is important not the DNA.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
Is this guy from the church of satan?
TheTorchdog 2 years ago
Nope.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
Press Announcement by the Hell Center for Child Torture & Killing:
Hell's most respected and admired Herr Dr. Joseph Mengele is resigning as Center Director, effective immediately, as his long-awaited replacement, Dr. George Tiller, formerly of Wichita Kansas has arrived and has begun his new duties. Dr. Tiller issued a statement praising the work of Dr. Mengele and his staff and pledged to continue the quality work of his predecessor. Master Lucifer, expressed confidence in Dr. Tiller.
ArmedandFree 2 years ago
Isn't interesting how those who support a womans right to kill their child speak?
Like this "intellect". Why doesn't he degrade the woman and call her a "creature". After all, are we not all creatures.
I wonder if this guy says, "Oh what cute creature you have!" when he sees an infant w/ their mother. ...or refer to others as an "it".
This language makes their actions more palatable when speaking AGAINST their own conscience.
We are a HUMAN BEING when conceived, not inhuman.
starcarrillo 2 years ago
I think you missed the thrust of my argument. I am arguing that being biologically human isn't, or shouldn't be, the prerequisite for the right to life.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
sorry etchick4life427's videos - it's also me
altosingstar 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
check out my two cents on my videos.
I got called an "air headed Negress" for it..but I think it has some sort of merit
altosingstar 2 years ago
u dont look like ur voice
aguywitha 2 years ago
My views 100%
PiggyDog89 2 years ago
Vaatard. You are no doubt an evolutionist. I believe thats where the argument starts. If we all came from soup billions of years ago, then natural no value is placed on life or what has "become" life.
tylerpeppard 2 years ago
I believe conscious, aware beings have an inherent value and, conversely, that beings that have never been conscious or aware don't have such value. I believe value, or lack of it, is found in the nature of a thing, not from some deity's command. I'd rather think things through than just follow orders.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
To each his own. I think not one being should have gone through life without trying God outside of religions. The word deity, that you mentioned, brings me back to a cold empty chapel where God has never even dwelt. You seem like a very bright person who strives to know as much as one can in a lifetime. I hope that you find or have found what it is you think life is all about.
In agape love
-Tyler
tylerpeppard 2 years ago
p.s Please do not to take the evolution comment personally. It just my unshakalbe perception of things. You know, as well as I do, that it is healthy to discuss these things to strengthen beliefs.
tylerpeppard 2 years ago
By your argument then, it would be possible to take away another's right to life, by merely putting them into a permanent state of unconsciousness.
Why talk about a right to life at all??
If the right to life can be taken away at the malicious whims of another, why not the right over one's body? Why would I need to consent to organ donations, or to allow someone else who needs my blood or plasma to take it?
How can we build an argument about rights upon statements that diminish those rights?
evidenttruths 2 years ago 2
If you rendered someone irrevocably unconsciousness I don't see much point in keeping the body alive. I would call putting someone into that level of unconsciousness murder but not the termination of their life support later.
I'm defining an object as something that has never achieved consciousness or that will never again achieve consciousness. It is not reasonable to give rights to objects.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
It is wrong to encroach on the rights of a conscious entity, a person, but when that entity becomes an object it loses those rights.
A person is more than the some of their parts. Just having a body doesn't entitle you to rights, its just a biological machine. The body can however support a consciousness which does have rights, including to the body which supports it.
Vaatrad 2 years ago
a patch of skin doesn't grow into a human...
CyberSzabo 3 years ago
Imagine you walked past a house and saw through the window that it was on fire and that inside there was an unconscious individual who you believed you could save in a timely fashion. Would you treat the individual as what they are then, a person, and try to save them or treat them as what they would become shortly, a charred corpse, if you were to leave them alone?
That an embryo will grow into a human [baby] is no longer inevitable when we have the power, and responsibility, to control it.
Vaatrad 3 years ago
a hunk of flesh does, and thats all the fetus is. and dont bring religion into it. thats your beleif about god, but nobody knows if its a true fact or not.
theportalmaster 2 years ago
Idiot.
ShAyAnDjAmEs09 3 years ago
Very well put. Thank you.
MildlyAnnoyed 3 years ago
NOT ONLY DO IDENTICAL TWINS NOT SHARE THE SAME DNA THEY DONT SHARE THE SAME FINGER PRINTS EATHER.! that makes my point even stronger. if the un-born has his/hers own DNA, finger prints that no one in the entire universe shares thats makes them unique from mom and everyone else they also have their own heart, blood, fingers, toes, head, mind, AND body! SO THEY ARE NOT A PART OF MOM NOR HER POSSISION/CHOICE.! - THIS PROVES THAT ABORTION- BREAKS THE 14 AMENDIMENT.!
danielley690 3 years ago
Given that I didn't argue in the video that a foetus is part of the mother's body you seem to be quite keen to argue this point. I've only argued that a foetus, at least for the first few weeks of gestation, doesn't qualify as a person and hence doesn't qualify for protection under the 14th Ammendment of your constitution. I argue that having a unique set of DNA doesn't qualify an entity as a person. I argue that a body, and hence DNA, is only important so far as it supports a conscious mind.
Vaatrad 3 years ago
Wouldn't that sort of lead to the brain dead not being considered human?
Beskargam 3 years ago
I didn't make my position on that particually clear in the video.
A mind, a person's thoughts, feelings, memories and personality, though not necessarily currently active, is what is important. If someone is in a coma and there is the possibility to recover their mind, then they should be kept alive. If someone is in a coma and there is no possibility to recover the mind, i.e. they are brain dead, then there is no imperative to keep them alive, all you have is a body.
Vaatrad 3 years ago
Even keeping in mind that doctors misdiagnose irreparable brain damage rather frequently?
Beskargam 3 years ago
That's really more of a technical point. I'm happy to err on the side of caution in the cases of uncertainty to take into account the limits of our knowledge and abilities.
Vaatrad 3 years ago
Well, I don't agree with where you stand, but I'm extremely happy to see that you have given the subject such degree of thought. Not nearly enough of that (on either side of the debate).
Beskargam 3 years ago
Someone who is truly brain dead, i.e. with no chance of recovery at all, I would not, or would no longer, consider a person, though they would still be counted as human.
Vaatrad 3 years ago
Actually, brain death is viewed medically as the end of human life... when a person is clinically considered "brain dead" their organs can be harvested for use in keeping another person alive (based upon their will and/or their loved ones wishes.)
dso1971 3 years ago 2
besk:Wouldn't that sort of lead to the brain dead not being considered human LOLOL, Do you relly think we can't tell the human species from any other, if they are brain dead?
sueezee 3 years ago 2
Wow, you really need to watch the video before you respond to other people's responses to the video. Heck, you could at least read the comments from the uploader on my comments.
Beskargam 3 years ago
VAATRAD: yes the twins will have "identical genetic constitution" or genetic makeup BUT they do NOT share the same DNA! your monozygotic twins wikipedia (maby u forgot to read this part) - "although they have nearly identical DNA,[13] environmental conditions both inside the womb and throughout their lives influence the switching on and off of various genes. " NEARLY IDENTICAL DNA.. NOT THE SAME!!
danielley690 3 years ago
I did already cover that in an earlier comment. "Genes may be expressed differently in the identical twins, due to environmental factors, and there is a very small chance of mutations occuring but they both start with the same DNA."
Why would it matter if there DNA was identical? Would you not count individuals, or individual minds, rather than sets of unique DNA?
Vaatrad 3 years ago
it matters b/c we are taking about abortion and a un born baby dosent have a unique mind yet! just unique dna. which sets it appart from mom. and therefor cannot be a possision/choice. ABORTION IS WRONG! what i have to say to all women: DONT SPREAD YOUR LEGS AND GET FUCKED IF U DONT WANT A BABY! their is over 100 different types of birthcontrol the ring, patch, pill, shot, diafram, marania, condoms, balloons(female condoms), simply pulling out. i could go on and on. no need 4 un protected sex.
danielley690 3 years ago
dan:born baby dosent have a unique mind yet! just unique dna. which sets it appart from mom. and therefor cannot be a possision/choice. DNA makes NO difference. There is nothing that makes a fetus belong to anyone but the woman. dan:their is over 100 different types of birthcontrol/////// simply pulling out. LOL. thats the one that accounts for MANY abortions. get you facts before you mess around!
sueezee 3 years ago 2
"LOL. thats the one that accounts for MANY abortions. get you facts before you mess around! "
okay! 93% of all abortions done are due to (social reasons.. i.e. child was unwanted!)- sounds like birth control to me! and their is over 100 diff. types of b.c. and a fetus dosnt belong to anyone b/c he/she has his/her own dna! thats makes him/her THEIR OWN PERSON!!! not a part of moms body!! smart one!
danielley690 3 years ago
dan:93% of all abortions done are due to (social reasons.. i.e. child was unwanted!)- sounds like birth control to me! OMG!! Are you frickin kidding? is there an age limit for posters in here????? dan, did you read what you just said(above)????? Does it really sound logical to you???? Goodbye...........................
sueezee 3 years ago
sweetheart, 93% of all abortions ARE done for that reason. and 1% is from rape. It makes PERFECT sense. Even then, a woman has no right to murder!
ShAyAnDjAmEs09 3 years ago
ShA:sweetheart, 93% of all abortions ARE done for that reason. and 1% is from rape So what, pumpkin lips? sha: Even then, a woman has no right to murder hahahah, then how come a MILLIONS happen every year? OOps, guess she DOES have that right! Now, I'm going to talk to someone who has a brian & uses it. Bye!
sueezee 3 years ago